Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Community gardens are increasingly popular in urban settings and offer a balance to work environments where technology and stress are common features. A community garden is any piece of land, gardened by a group of people, where vegetables and/or flowers are grown. Although community gardens differ in their purposes, in general, they foster the development of horticultural skills and provide opportunities for enhanced well-being through occupation. Community gardens enable people to meet and build their community, revitalize neglected areas, and provide access to green space for all people (Teig et al., 2009). Personal benefits include access to low-cost nutritious food, relaxation and opportunities for exercise (Wakefield et al., 2007). Despite the potential for positive health outcomes from community gardening, few studies have examined if and how this occupation influences self-perceived well-being among gardeners.\nStatement of purpose: The purpose of this exploratory qualitative research is to provide insight into the experiences of community gardeners and describe how gardeners believe that their participation in this occupation affects their health and well-being. The research question is: ‘How does participation in a community garden impact the perceived health and well-being of garden members?’\nDescription of methods: Adults who are community garden members were recruited from several sites in metro Vancouver. Semi-structured interviews are underway with 6-10 participants to gather data about their experiences of community gardening and well-being. Field notes form additional data and research journals are being utilized for reflexivity. The research design is informed by phenomenology i.e., the focus is on understanding lived experience and its meaning, and the data analysis is inductive. Data are being analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic data analysis process and guided by occupational science concepts.\nReport of results: It is anticipated that the findings will illuminate aspects of community gardening that that sustain and constrain well-being. Initial data indicate that gardening enables lifelong learning and contributes to the well-being of the local community, which affects participants’ health positively.\nObjectives for poster presentation: To discuss if and how occupations that require interaction with nature produce different health outcomes than those situated in other settings To generate ideas for community-based participatory research that explore how community gardening could promote the health and well-being of communities and individuals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle